Dresden

"Dresden: Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1945" by Frederick Taylor

So the Allies ruthlessly -- and unjustifiably -- firebombed Germany's most beautiful city and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, right? Not quite, says a prominent British historian.

"Most Americans -- at least, the ones who aren't addicted to the History Channel -- know about the bombing of Dresden in 1945 from Kurt Vonnegut's bestselling novel "Slaughterhouse-Five," based on Vonnegut's own experiences as a prisoner of war. The attack is still a touchstone for the moral perils of war. Frederick Taylor, a British historian whose new book on the subject goes on to challenge much of what we think we know about the bombing, describes the conventional understanding thus: "Dresden was the unforgivable thing our fathers did in the name of freedom and humanity, taking to the air to destroy a beautiful and, above all, innocent European city. This was the great blot on the Allies' war record, the one that could not be explained away."

Slaughterhouse-Five" came out in 1969, a time when many Americans were wondering just how much carnage could be justified by the trumpeted ideals of democracy and freedom. Like Joseph Heller's "Catch-22," "Slaughterhouse-Five" is a book set during World War II that was read in the light of Vietnam. It wasn't the first time Dresden was seen as a proxy. Taylor writes that not long after the war's end, and certainly before that, "Dresden became one of the most well-placed pawns on [a] virtual propaganda chessboard." There is the real Dresden and the Dresden of legend. Taylor makes what is by all appearances a good-faith effort to excavate the former by digging through the many layers of the latter. His "Dresden: Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1945" aims to be the last word on the subject, though it's sure to be argued about for years to come.

The most familiar version of the story, the one that appears in "Slaughterhouse Five," is that Dresden, the seventh largest city in Nazi Germany, was a lovely, cultured place of no military significance that had been left untouched by the air war before February 1945. The Allies' attack, two waves of Royal Air Force bombings on the night of Feb. 13 and a lesser raid by American planes the following day, was an unprecedented, unnecessary, vindictive assault made at a point when the war was essentially over and when the Allies knew that the city was full of refugees fleeing the advancing Russian front to the east. The attack, according to this version, was a pure "terror bombing" designed to wreak maximum havoc and culminating in the aerial strafing of people fleeing the flames. Somewhere between 135,000 and a half-million people were killed.

According to Taylor, most of the above is simply untrue. Tapping municipal records that have only recently become accessible after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of East Germany (the nation that included postwar Dresden), he persuasively argues that the real death toll from the attack was somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 and that Dresden was far from innocent of war-related industry and activity. After scrutinizing and comparing the records and history of British bombing campaigns against the Third Reich in the latter days of the war, he finds that "Dresden was a big raid, but no bigger than a considerable number of others at that time directed against the urban areas of Germany." He comes up with several stated and plausible reasons for the Allies to target the city besides the main motive attributed to them by their harshest critics: bloodthirsty revenge for the bombing of London during the Blitz and anti-German zeal. The strafing almost certainly never occurred.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,339854,00.html

I seem to recall there have been several books out within the last couple of years that show Dresden in a different light.

I think the ethics of war can't really be addressed without considering what you are fighting against and what the consequences of not fighting are. It's not simply a matter of what targets are legit or the ethics of the time period.

"Thou shalt not kill" and "Do unto others" are the foundations of any ethical systems, yet both are violated by war. At the same time, it would be absurd to say that war is never justified.

The important considerations, in my opinion, is what through war is preserved, and what through destruction is allowed to be built.
 
Mycroft said:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,339854,00.html

[from the link]
"The attack, according to this version, was a pure "terror bombing" designed to wreak maximum havoc and culminating in the aerial strafing of people fleeing the flames. Somewhere between 135,000 and a half-million people were killed. "
I didn't hear about Dresden from slaughterhouse five, at least not directly, but the first time I heard about it I was indeed informed that it was pure terror bombing and that about 250.000 poeple had died.

Mycroft said:
I think the ethics of war can't really be addressed without considering what you are fighting against and what the consequences of not fighting are. It's not simply a matter of what targets are legit or the ethics of the time period.
I agree, I personally hold the belief that there is (almost) nothing that couldn't in principle be justified, if the alternative was sufficiently bad.
 
Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Jon_in_london said:
So you disagree with the entire Allied bombing campaign?

Only those parts that involve deliberate targeting of civilians.

And no need to reply by enumerating all German, Japanese, or Soviets war crimes. I know quite a lot about them. I even know about Finnish war crimes and the fact that the Soviets committed more crimes against Finns than vice versa doesn't absolve those Finns from their crimes. And I think the same about all other countries: that Germans committed lots and lots of war crimes to just about everyone they fought against didn't make it right for the Allies to do likevise for Germans.
 
Jon_in_london said:
Every single German man, woman and child was a potential soldier and/or contributor to the Nazi war effort. Fair game.

[sarcasme]Every Jew was a potential soldier and/or contributer to the allied war effort. Fair Game.[/sarcasme]
 
'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

Churchill said this a few weeks after Dresden. As the person ultimately responsible for the bombing campaign he understood that terrorising the civilian population was one of its aims and not just an unfortunate side effect. However, he was sophisticated enough to seriously doubt the morality of his own policy. I dont understand how anyone can be sure that deliberately targeting women and children was the right thing to do.
 
So, wonder of wonders, it appears that Dresden was a fairly "standard" raid. This simplifies our little moral quandery into: was the allied air offensive justifiable?

Well was it?

1) Speers attempts to centralise production had to be reversed (to diffuse the targets) - German production in the last two years of the war onlyy 2/3rds of Speers goal.

2) Luftwaffe pulled back from Russia to defend the Fatherland, gives Sthe oviet Air Force air superiority on a plate.

3) Massive switch from producing artillery to producing anti aircraft guns (of the order of 90%/10% to 10%/90%) (factoid: in both WW1 and WW2 about 60% of combat casualties were caused by artillery)

4) switch from producing similar numbers of bombers and fighters in the early war to about 95% fighter production in later war.

5) 2 million workers employed repairing damage caused by strategic bombing.

6) Only took up 7% of western allied war effort, and was the capital/technologically intensive but casualty light style of fighting that sat best with the democracies strengths and weaknesses.

On the downside:

a) It didn't - as some of it's supporters had hoped - cause a catastrophic collapse of the national will to fight. (Though as the points above show it certainly made a difference to the national ability to fight)

b) Civilian casualties - called civilian raher than "innocent" as you can argue how innocent the German public was having voted Hitler into power - lost some of the moral highground.

Personally, I'd say that the war was close enough that either side had to fight to the utmost to win it, and the consequences of a Nazi victory were so dire that there simply wasn't the "luxury" of waging a "marquis of queensbury" war. How many more people (allied soldiers, concentration camp inmates etc) would have died if the bombs hadn't been dropped?

I believe Churchill said something to this effect when discussing mining (neutral) Norwegian waters near the beginning of the war. He said that the British action would violate the laws of neutrality, but that it might be the only way that we could guaranatee that neutrality would still be respected in the future.
 
Giz said:
So, wonder of wonders, it appears that Dresden was a fairly "standard" raid. This simplifies our little moral quandery into: was the allied air offensive justifiable?

Well was it?

1) Speers attempts to centralise production had to be reversed (to diffuse the targets) - German production in the last two years of the war onlyy 2/3rds of Speers goal.

2) Luftwaffe pulled back from Russia to defend the Fatherland, gives Sthe oviet Air Force air superiority on a plate.

3) Massive switch from producing artillery to producing anti aircraft guns (of the order of 90%/10% to 10%/90%) (factoid: in both WW1 and WW2 about 60% of combat casualties were caused by artillery)

4) switch from producing similar numbers of bombers and fighters in the early war to about 95% fighter production in later war.

5) 2 million workers employed repairing damage caused by strategic bombing.

6) Only took up 7% of western allied war effort, and was the capital/technologically intensive but casualty light style of fighting that sat best with the democracies strengths and weaknesses.

On the downside:

a) It didn't - as some of it's supporters had hoped - cause a catastrophic collapse of the national will to fight. (Though as the points above show it certainly made a difference to the national ability to fight)

b) Civilian casualties - called civilian raher than "innocent" as you can argue how innocent the German public was having voted Hitler into power - lost some of the moral highground.

Personally, I'd say that the war was close enough that either side had to fight to the utmost to win it, and the consequences of a Nazi victory were so dire that there simply wasn't the "luxury" of waging a "marquis of queensbury" war. How many more people (allied soldiers, concentration camp inmates etc) would have died if the bombs hadn't been dropped?

I believe Churchill said something to this effect when discussing mining (neutral) Norwegian waters near the beginning of the war. He said that the British action would violate the laws of neutrality, but that it might be the only way that we could guaranatee that neutrality would still be respected in the future.

German armaments production tripled while the bombing was in full swing. All the "upside" factors other than perhaps number 5 are a result of the air war and not necessarily the area bombing strategy. If the British had adopted the US strategy of precision bombing then the overall damage to the Germans may have been less but it would still have been significant.

Terror bombing failed. It didnt bring about a German collapse in 1944 and had little effect on morale. Of course when they took the decision to go ahead with it they genuinely thought it had the potential to achieve these aims so maybe the end they hoped for justified the means.
 
simper said:
If the British had adopted the US strategy of precision bombing then the overall damage to the Germans may have been less but it would still have been significant.

Well, the much vaunted "US Precision bombing" wasn't really all that precise, you know. There were benefits to bombing by daylight (the RAF did much of their bombing at night after getting sick of being shot down in droves in daylight) but even so it was a pretty inaccurate business. There were exceptions for various specialist squadrons (617 for the RAF and I daresay te USAAF had a similar set of experts), but for the most part the USAAF were involved in a very similar bombing strategy. And just so we're clear, the USAAF were also involved in the flattening of Dresden.

Originally posted by Kerberos
Can't the German mourn 35.000 dead without going through a detailed list of every warcrime the Nazis commited first?

No, I don't think they can, and I don't think they should be allowed to.

If you look at what happened in Dresden then horror and regret are (or should be) the emotional reaction. Horror at the way those 35,000 innocent people were killed. And let's face it, most of them were innocent, it's sophistry to suggest anything else, no matter what else was going on in the city. In all probability, it was a vindictive act that made no difference to the outcome of the war.

But you must not just react emotionally to it, you have to place it in the proper context: we were in the final cruel months of a war that was started by an aggressive, racist, totalitarian state, that had seen large areas of Europe laid waste, and indeed the introduction of deliberate terror-bombing of civilian areas by the Nazis. That we copied their tactic is not exactly something to be proud of, but looking back on it now, it's not easy to put ourselves in that same brutalised position.

I think we can acknowledge that Germans were victims as well as perpetrators. But I think it's important not to forget why they became victims.
 
richardm said:
No, I don't think they can, and I don't think they should be allowed to.

If you look at what happened in Dresden then horror and regret are (or should be) the emotional reaction. Horror at the way those 35,000 innocent people were killed. And let's face it, most of them were innocent, it's sophistry to suggest anything else, no matter what else was going on in the city. In all probability, it was a vindictive act that made no difference to the outcome of the war.

But you must not just react emotionally to it, you have to place it in the proper context: we were in the final cruel months of a war that was started by an aggressive, racist, totalitarian state, that had seen large areas of Europe laid waste, and indeed the introduction of deliberate terror-bombing of civilian areas by the Nazis. That we copied their tactic is not exactly something to be proud of, but looking back on it now, it's not easy to put ourselves in that same brutalised position.

I think we can acknowledge that Germans were victims as well as perpetrators. But I think it's important not to forget why they became victims.
Which Schrôder didn't: [from the link in the original post]
"Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder spoke out against the far right.

"Today we grieve for the victims of war and the Nazi reign of terror in Dresden, in Germany and in Europe," he said in a statement issued in Berlin.

He pledged to oppose "these attempts to re-interpret history".

"We will not allow cause and effect to be reversed," he said. "

This certainly satisfies my requirements for remebering why it happened.
 
richardm said:
There were benefits to bombing by daylight (the RAF did much of their bombing at night after getting sick of being shot down in droves in daylight) but even so it was a pretty inaccurate business.
Thats why they had Fighter mark the targets, with flares and firebombs.

It can also be said that the bombing of Dresden was the first action of the Cold War, as to show the advancing Russians that the Allies should not be underestimated.
 
simper said:
German armaments production tripled while the bombing was in full swing. All the "upside" factors other than perhaps number 5 are a result of the air war and not necessarily the area bombing strategy. If the British had adopted the US strategy of precision bombing then the overall damage to the Germans may have been less but it would still have been significant.

The British started off bombing by day but were forced to switch to night bombing due to losses. The US were almost forced to do the same and until the Merlin-powered Mustang came along, the US bombing campaign was in serrious danger of being called off altogether.

Can you substantiate that "German armaments production tripled while the bombing was in full swing"? I have heard this bandied about but never substanitated.

Has it occured to you what the German armaments production might have been like had their cities not been bombed to snot? Has it occured to you that all those 88mm AA guns would have been chewing up Allied tanks had they not been filling their own skies with shells? Might not all those fighters been better employed shooting up Allied troops on the Normandy beach-head than waiting for the bombers over Berlin? So German morale was not shattered, but what would have German morale have been like had their civilians lived in peace right up to when the Allies eneterd their cities (if they ever did)?

In addition to the switch from offensive to defensive arms production, all of these factors must be taken into account before condemning the bombing campaign as useless.
 
Jon_in_london said:


Has it occured to you what the German armaments production might have been like had their cities not been bombed to snot?

Exactly, the Third Reich had all of Europe at their disposal and yet they failed to become an economic superpower to rival the USA and USSR (the USSR which had had the majority of its coal and steel producing areas overrun by Germany!) in large part due to the bombing.
 
Most people who are highly interested in Hitler's Germany either revere the players as heros (making them closet neo-nazis), or they are left wingers who want to trace every facet of modern life back to Nazi-ism, down to the fact that Hitler couldn't draw people so everyone who isn't artistic may be a fascist. Doing so makes them feel good and serves their petty political interests at the expense of Holocaust memorial.

The label Nazi is so watered down in this manner, one should take it as a triumph to be called one, as it only displays the accuser's lack of understading and perspective.
 
Jon_in_london said:
The British started off bombing by day but were forced to switch to night bombing due to losses. The US were almost forced to do the same and until the Merlin-powered Mustang came along, the US bombing campaign was in serrious danger of being called off altogether.

One of the benefits of the air war was that the Germans had to use their relatively scarce resources to counter it. When the Americans introduced their long range fighters the Germans had to pit their fighters against them. They lost. Even with their dramatic increases in fighter production they could not replace their losses.

Can you substantiate that "German armaments production tripled while the bombing was in full swing"? I have heard this bandied about but never substanitated.

This is accepted historical fact. Ive googled but I cant find an opposing view. The increase occured between early 1942 and July 1944. After that production decreased.

Has it occured to you what the German armaments production might have been like had their cities not been bombed to snot?

Has anyone suggested that Germany would not have produced more armaments if their cities had not been bombed? However the choice is not between area bombing and doing nothing. The choice, in essence at least, was between targeting the civilian population or targeting industrial areas. I read somewhere that something like half a million Germans were manning AA guns. Would substantially less resources have been needed if a different allied strategy had been used?
 
Dresden was punitive , much as Hiroshima was.
The city was an industrial base , but the US dropped incendiary devices which would have no great impact on industrial targets only flammable substances. A brick factory or railroad is not really subject to much damage from firebombs. The fact that the raid was the equivalent to later "Carpet Bombing" is telling by itself.
There was some selective targeting but for the most part it was dumping incendiaries to erode support and effect the will to fight.

The ethics , I leave to You.
 
simper said:

This is accepted historical fact. Ive googled but I cant find an opposing view. The increase occured between early 1942 and July 1944. After that production decreased.


Massive heavy bombing only kicked in in 1943, (the US needed a year to fully kick in). From 1943 on the air campaign had a marked effect of production (both in lost production due to damage and in foiling German attempts to centralise mass production).
 
Jon_in_london said:

Has it occured to you what the German armaments production might have been like had their cities not been bombed to snot?

And wonder what would have happened to German armaments production if Bomber Harris had not insisted on bombing city centres instead of actual armament factories?

Harris was certain that he would won the war by killing as many German civilians as possible to the extent that he fought with tooth and nail against any attempt to get the British to bomb targets of direct military value. He was wrong. The war was won by destroying the German army manpower and the army logistics. The most important contribution of strategic bombing was the destruction of German oil production in 1944 that more or less ended the German fighter pilot training as well as severely curtailing the mobility of German ground forces.

Has it occured to you that all those 88mm AA guns would have been chewing up Allied tanks had they not been filling their own skies with shells?

Well, the vast majority of the Reich AA gun crews were teenagers too young for front line service and "HiWis" (foreign "volunteers") who were too unrealiable for it, so the actual manpower loss was not excessive. Also, pretty much all of those 88 mm guns were used against Allied tanks when the front line approached their deployment places, and little good did they do. The 88 mm Flak gun was much worse AT weapon than commonly believed: it was way too large to conceal effectively so its lifetime tended to be counted in minutes in the front. When the same gun was mounted on a specific AT mount it was more useful but still too large for effective use.

So German morale was not shattered, but what would have German morale have been like had their civilians lived in peace right up to when the Allies eneterd their cities (if they ever did)?

Now, tell me Jon, how did the Blitz affect the British morale? Did it lower it or did it encourage the Brits to continue fighting?
 
And wonder what would have happened to German armaments production if Bomber Harris had not insisted on bombing city centres instead of actual armament factories?
Probably not much, since bomber accuracy was awful in those days. Especially in night raids.

If I recall, for the first attack on Berlin bomber crews were ordered to drop their bombs only on clear millitary targets. About 80% of the aircraft brought their payload back. Accuracy improved during the course of the war, but precision strikes with strategic bombers were practically impossible. Harris knew this, so he decided the only possible use of his bomber force would be to attack large, civilian targets in an attempt to disrupt production indirectly.
Remember Stalin kept insisting on a second front, the Allies had to do something. Besides, many people in the airforce held the opinion that wars could be won by bombing alone, without the need for heavy infantry losses. And they were actually right, just 50 years early.

We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but both parties in those days were simply fighting tooth and nail for nothing less than their survival. While still carrying fresh memories from WWI.
 
Ed said:
I am sad for the death of anyone.

I am saddest if it is me
I am next sad if it is a family member
I am next sad if it is a friend
I am next sad if it is an acquaintance
I am next sad if it is a citizen of my town
I am next sad if it is a citizen of the US
I am next sad if it is a citizen of a country friendly to the US
I am next sad if it is a citizen of a country at war with us
I am least sad if it is a soldier waging war on us but still sad

It is entirely possible to feel sad about the people from Dresden. It just has to be viewed in this context.


Wow. That made total sense. Good point.
 

Back
Top Bottom